Out-Of-Game Discussion

An EPS (250Kb) of the elements I used for the script - somebody please stop me if this is too pushy, overdoing it, out of turn, whatever. --Joe Bowers 22:38, 4 Sep 2004

Not at all - I think this stuff is excellent. --Morbus Iff 22:58, 4 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Agreed. I must admit that before I clicked on the link I was expecting a Bunch-of-Squiggles situation (call the mayor! we've got a bunch of squiggles situation on fifth street!), but when I loaded it I was rather pleasantly surprised to see a work of art. Ah, and I guess this explains it: "I recently went back to school to study digital media. I'm acting as technical director of a digital media design firm while pursuing my degree" - About Joe Bowers. In any case, I vehemently agree with Morbus, am delighted at your caution and politeness in soliciting advice about your actions, and very much look forward to further contributions. --Sean B. Palmer 14:17, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Concerning "what is authoritative?", the short, out of game response is, "entries are authoritative, comments are not." It's fine for the scholars to argue points to death, and we certainly encourage that, but whereas comments are fast "shotgun" submissions, entries are "slower" and more "accurate." When you're writing your entries, you can certainly use scholarly discussion as influence, thus making something canonical ("ha, ha! told you!"), but naturally, it has to "work" - to fit in with the rest of what we know from previous encyclopedia entries, etc., etc., etc. Likewise, you can certainly allude in your entries that something you're making canon is "up for discussion" due to lack of hard evidence, translation issues, suspicion (did Windsor really murder Daniel, etc.) (in fact, a number of our existing entries seem to have hooks like that). "Entries yes, comments no" is just a way to give the poor admins a chance to breath in regards to stuff like the timeline, the progress reports, the who's who, and so forth. --Morbus Iff 09:11, 6 Sep 2004 (EDT)